THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


WORKING GROUP MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


ROCKY FLATS
 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 


Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held telephonically on November 26, 


2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES
 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTING 

404/733-6070 
2 

C O N T E N T S 

November 26, 2007 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, ABRWH 

MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, NEUTRON ISSUES, ’52 -‘66 

6 

9 

9 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 38 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- “^”/(inaudible)/(unintelligible) signifies 


speaker failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL
 

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 


Principal Associate Director 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

ALBERG, JEANETTE, SEN. ALLARD 


BARKER, KAY, ANWAG 


BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 


BOLLER, CAROLYN, CONG. UDALL 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON 


ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

 

6 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (10:00 a.m.) 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. BRANCHE: This is a meeting of the, a 


conference call of the working group of Rocky 


Flats’ site profile and SEC petition. And I’d 


like, please, for the Board members to 


identify themselves who are on the call. 


MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, the Chair of the 


work group. 


MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson. 


MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. I’m 


going to go through a little housekeeping here 


for just a moment. 


Are there any other members of the 


Board who are on the call? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: All right. Would NIOSH staff 


and ORAU staff please identify yourselves and 


also mention if you have a conflict when you 


identify yourself. 


MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I have 


no conflict. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

7 

DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh, no conflict. 


(30-second power failure) 


DR. BRANCHE: Any other members of Congress 


or their representatives on the call, please? 


COURT REPORTER: Dr. Branche, this is Shane. 


We had a power flicker here at the house. I 

missed about the last 30 seconds. That’s 

where it went off, but I’ve got you back. Go 

ahead, thank you. 

DR. BRANCHE: There were three people who 


identified themselves as petitioners. Did you 


catch any of their names? 


COURT REPORTER: No, I didn’t. If you could 


have them again, I’d appreciate it. 


DR. BRANCHE: Please forgive us. There was 


a power flicker. Could we please have the 


petitioners or their representatives mention 


their names again, please? 


MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie, T-E-R-RI-E, B, as in boy, A-R-R-I-E of ANWAG. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. 


MS. BARKER: This is Kay Barker, B-A-R-K-E-R 


of ANWAG. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you very much. I 


appreciate that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Are there any other people on the call 


who would like to identify themselves? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: This is Liz Homoki-Titus 


with HHS. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, Liz. 


 DR. WADE: And Lew Wade with NIOSH. 


MS. HOWELL: This is Emily Howell with HHS. 


 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi with ORAU. 


DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, and I’m Christine 


Branche, and I’m with the office of the 


Director of NIOSH. 


Dr. (sic) Presley, have you joined the 


call? 


 (no response) 


DR. BRANCHE: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: Christine, can I ask is anyone 


from the Department of Labor on the call? 


 (no response) 


MR. GRIFFON: I guess that’s a no. 


DR. BRANCHE: I guess that’s a no. 


Before I hand it over to the Chair I 


just want to please ask everyone if you are 


going to speak, please go ahead and speak into 


the phone directly so that our recorder can 


get all of your words. But if you’re not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

speaking if you could please mute your phone, 


it will help all of us better hear the phone 


conversation. Thank you very much. 


Mark. 


INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR
 

MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to, I set up 


this work group call for our Rocky Flats work 


group. Obviously, we haven’t met in quite a 


while. 


MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, NEUTRON ISSUES, ’52 -‘66
 

But the reason for this call, there’s really 


only one agenda item, and it is a follow up on 


the implementation of the Rocky Flats’ class, 


specifically what workers are considered as 


members of the class, or should be considered 


members of the class based on the question of 


monitored or should have been monitored for 


neutron exposures from ’52 through ’66. 


And I know that the, you know, 


generally speaking, the implementation of that 


class is a Department of Labor decision as we 


know. But we did leave, as a work group we 


did ask NIOSH in our decision in Denver to 


please as an action provide a listing of 


buildings that NIOSH believed to be buildings 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

where workers that were in those buildings 


during that time period should be considered 


part of the class. And therefore, that’s why 


I think we just wanted to follow up on this. 


And it was sort of highlighted by the 


interest by the petitioners and others 


watching this process, particularly the four 


newspaper stories. If folks haven’t seen 


them, I think there’s four newspaper stories 


that have come out in the Rocky Mountain News, 


November 7th, November 9th, November 10th and 


November 24th . If you don’t have those, we can 


certainly get copies around. I don’t know if 


everyone has all four of the stories. 


But the primary subject touched on in 


these stories was that, was sort of 


questioning whether the number of buildings 


indicated by NIOSH was all-inclusive of the 


way we had written up the SEC class. And, in 


fact, the article, or one of the articles 


suggests that there’s evidence that workers in 


some other buildings were exposed to neutron 


radiation between ’52 and ’66. So, and this 


is, I think, derived from the University of 


Colorado research. Margaret Ruttenber did 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11 

speak to this a little bit. 


And just as a reminder, early on in 


our work group we had a matrix item where we 


did look at, we knew that the University of 


Colorado had done the medical surveillance 


study, and we expressed interest in looking at 


this data. NIOSH then -- and if I get this 


wrong, Larry or Brant can correct me -- but my 


understanding is NIOSH did go to the 


University of Colorado, review this data, and 


basically determined that it was, as far as 


the radiation exposure data itself, it was not 


anything different than we already had 


available to us for review, and therefore, it 


wasn’t going to, you know, we didn’t pursue it 


any further, or NIOSH didn’t pursue it any 


further as far as getting copies of it or 


getting electronic copies of it and making it 


available to the work group. 


So that’s sort of the background of 


this, and I guess my reason for the call is 


just to, I think we all need to better 


understand maybe, you know, it seems that 


this, the newspaper articles are raising at 


least a question in the minds, you know, for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

some people, as to whether we are or NIOSH and 


DOL are identifying all people that were 


monitored or should have been monitored for 


neutron exposures. 


And we as the Board, I think, should 


at least monitor this process so that we make 


sure we, you know, the class as we suggested 


be implemented appropriately. So I guess I 


would just maybe throw it open to ask NIOSH if 


they can help us shed some light. 


The other thing we might need to do 


here -- I’ll just throw this out right up 


front -- is we may need to determine, and this 


may require a, more of a technical phone call 


with the University of Colorado and NIOSH to 


sort of, and maybe with the Board on the line 


or SC&A on the line to sort out what data 


we’re looking at; what data they’re looking at 


and make sure that we are comparing apples and 


apples, you know, whether we have the same 


data or not. I think that may, that’s sort of 


down in the weeds and may require a sort of 


technical phone call between the University of 


Colorado and NIOSH with maybe the Board 


monitoring. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Mark, this is Liz Homoki-


Titus. Since this is a DOL decision, it’s 


just my recommendation that you might want to 


try to include them as well. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, DOL is who I was hoping 


they were on the call today actually, too. 


But, yeah, you’re right, Liz. So we’re really 


monitoring it from the standpoint of the work 


group had sort of asked NIOSH to do the best 


research they could to provide a listing of 


buildings. And then after that, you’re right, 


it is up to DOL so they should probably be in 


the loop as well. 


MS. MUNN: Mark, this is Wanda Munn. I 


haven’t seen that most recent article you 


indicated, the 11/24 one. Those things don’t 


always come through unless someone is tracking 


the media publications. 


MR. GRIFFON: I will try to get a copy of 


that to you unless some has it readily 


available. I have a hard copy but not --


MS. MUNN: I don’t necessarily need it 


today, but at your convenience if I could have 


a copy. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, certainly. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

MS. MUNN: Thank you. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I don’t know. I guess I 


would ask maybe if Larry or Brant could give 


us a sense, did I mischaracterize anything, 


and maybe we could decide on a reasonable path 


forward just to make, I mean, I think it’s in 


all of our best interests to make sure we get 


this listing of buildings and the right people 


in the class. So I think --


MR. ELLIOTT: Mark, this is Larry Elliott. 


Let me speak to a couple things here for you. 


I’ll ask Brant to fill in what I haven’t 


spoken to or reflected upon. 


First of all, I would clarify that we 


don’t think the Board asked us to provide a 


list of buildings we thought the Board, it was 


our job to provide DOL any way possible for 


them to assist them in determining eligibility 


for class members. And we pointed to the NDRP 


and its contents and said that these, the NDRP 


has a list of buildings, and it also has a 


list of employees who were monitored or should 


have been monitored in those buildings. And 


if you look at the DOL circular, or actually a 


technical bulletin on this, which is 08-01, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

dated October 15th, 2007, there are three 


screening criteria that DOL uses to assist in 


determining eligibility of a claimant for 


these two classes. The first is inclusion in 


the Rocky Flats Neutron Dosimetry 


Reconstruction Project list. And the second 


is any previously completed NIOSH dose 


reconstruction for a named employee which 


includes neutron exposure or mentions exposure 


to plutonium. And the third is employment in 


a building identified as a plutonium building. 


So we assisted in providing and pointing to 


the NDRP and the list of buildings that it 


contained for DOL. We have had conversations 


with DOL about the claims that were in our 


hands at the point in time. We gave them a 


list of claims that had been sent to NIOSH 


that contained what we thought to be a 


presumptive cancer. We gave them another list 


of claims that we had here that were non-


presumptive cancer. And that’s essentially 


the standard practice that is employed here in 


engaging DOL on any of these classes. I’m 


sorry that they’re not on the line today to 


speak directly to any questions or concerns 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

that you may have here. As DOL started 


working through these claims, they come across 


this Building 881. They talked to us about 


Building 881. We told them that building, as 


Brant had presented in his presentation, I 


believe, in June -- he can speak to this --


that Building 881 had very miniscule, small 


amounts of plutonium activity in that 


building. It was a building where they 


reconditioned the uranium pits and the 


cladding. The plutonium cladding had already 


been removed so they were using an acid bath 


to wash, to remove any residual plutonium from 


those pits and clean them up. In that case it 


had been our opinion that neutron exposures 


were de minimis there in Building 881. Be 


that as it may -- and we talked to DOL about 


that. Be that as it may, DOL pointed out that 


in a couple or so many of our reconstructed 


cases that NIOSH had used, I guess, a 


claimant-favorable approach and given neutron 


exposure to people who may have worked at 


Building 881. So that fit the second 


screening criteria. And so they have added 


Building 881 to their list with no objection 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

from us. We found that to be, if that’s the 


way they wanted to approach it, we understood 


that, and we found that to be okay. So I 


don’t know where you want to go with this at 


this point but --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I guess --


MR. ELLIOTT: Do you have anything to add to 


this, my -– background? 


DR. ULSH: Yes, I do actually. As you know, 


the Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project 


included people who were monitored for 


neutrons or people who were monitored for 


gamma but not neutrons if they worked in a 


plutonium building. One of the topics that 


the Board asked us to report further on it at 


the May Board meeting included plutonium in 


Building 881. 


And I did report on that in my 


presentation at the June Board meeting and 


specifically talked about the operation that 


Larry mentioned where they received weapons 


back from the field that were being 


decommissioned. The plutonium was removed in 


the 700 buildings, and the pits were shipped 


over to Building 881. It contained what 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

workers termed trivial or nuisance levels of 


plutonium. Certainly not enough to generate 


significant neutron fields. 


Those uranium parts were washed in 


Building 881 in acid, and the acid was shipped 


back to Building 771. So there’s no evidence 


that there were significant neutron fields in 


Building 881. So that’s that building. 


Now as Mark mentioned, the Rocky 


Mountain News has been reporting that there 


are 19 other buildings that should be 


considered neutron buildings. And this past 


Saturday, the latest article that I have, 


actually gave a list of those buildings that 


they assert were neutron buildings. And this 


morning I verified the descriptions of those 


buildings, what they actually did. 


And last week I actually verified with 


the records people out at Rocky Flats that 


there were no reportable quantities of uranium 


-- I’m sorry -- of plutonium in Building 881 


or any buildings other than listed in the 


NDRP. Now in the newspaper article this past 


Saturday, they had a list of buildings, and I 


got the descriptions. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

And I’m not going to go through all of 


them, all of the 19, but they include, for 


example, Building 111 which is an office, 


print shop, photography lab; Building 112 


which is a general cafeteria, Building 750, 


which is a cafeteria, 333 which is a paint 


shop. So it goes on and on. I have not 


spoken to the reporter at the Rocky Mountain 


News about this so I don’t know what criteria 


she’s using to say that these are neutron 


buildings. 


MR. GRIFFON: And some of this I think can 


be, I think we need to understand. Let me 


just say a couple things. One, on 881, we did 


as a work group ask, that’s correct, Brant. 


And I think one thing that you’re not 


mentioning is that we also, I think -- and 


correct me if I’m wrong -- you reported or 


agreed with findings that we said there were 


also some critical experiments that were done 


in 881. 


DR. ULSH: That is correct. 


MR. GRIFFON: So it wasn’t only the 


plutonium contamination then --


DR. ULSH: And those were critical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

experiments involved a couple of people who 


were already part of the NDRP. I could 


identify them by name. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right, and we had this 


discussion of whether it was one or two or 


whether it could have been more people 


involved, and we never really resolved that. 


Or I didn’t feel that we resolved it. You 


might have felt comfortable with that. But 


that was sort of hanging out there, too, as 


another thing that went on in that building. 


MS. BOLLER: Mark, I’m sorry to interrupt, 


but this is Carolyn Boller. I’m going to have 


to hang up. I’ve got a doctor’s appointment. 


But it seems to me that 881 is no longer an 


issue since the Department of Labor has put 


that on the list --


MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 


MS. BOLLER: -- so if we can get off of 881. 


What I would like to know is this list of 19 


buildings, is I would like somebody, and I’m 


willing to do this or somebody else, pick up a 


phone and call Laura Frank at the Rocky 


Mountain News, somebody from the Board, and 


find out where she got her information and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

what she based it on, if she will share that 


information with you. 


A second piece of it, I think that 


someone needs to talk to Margaret about Jim’s 


studies because allegedly all of these 19 


buildings came from the Ruttenber studies. So 


somebody needs to have a follow-up 


conversation with her to find out what 


Margaret is willing to share with us and how 


did they come, did they have something in 


their study that you all might have missed 


early on? 


MR. ELLIOTT: It was a standard study, 


Carolyn. Brant Ulsh has been there. NIOSH, 


you know, this study was done under a 


cooperative agreement with NIOSH money. The 


study was also to look at toxic chemical 


exposures as well as radioactive material 


exposures. 


And we’re not quibbling that there is 


this list of buildings in that study. We’re 


not quibbling that there was toxic exposure in 


those buildings. We had no quibbles at all 


with the study itself. And in Brant’s review 


of the information that Dr. Ruttenber had 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

assembled for his study, you know, we were 


prepared to negotiate with Dr. Ruttenber to 


get any information that we had not yet seen 


or been made available to us. 


And Brant’s determination was that we 


had all of that information already. We were 


receiving it or had received it, and there was 


nothing new there to offer in dose 


reconstruction or in an SEC evaluation. 


MS. BOLLER: And I think, if I understand 


correctly, 881 was added not only because it 


met the criteria as well, it was because they 


had had people who had indicated that they’d 


had neutron exposure in their claims. So 881 


was added to take care of those folks. You’ve 


got a lot of people, you know, who you don’t 


have records of who moved in and out of some 


of these buildings. Maybe they weren’t 


permanently assigned there, but they moved in 


and out, and they may have spent some degree 


of time. I think those are going to be the 


problem cases. 


DR. ULSH: Well, the people who worked in 


Building 881 who had neutron exposure were 


those who worked overtime periodically in one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

of the plutonium buildings, and when they did 


so they were issued a neutron dosimetry, and 


they were already part of the NDRP class. 


I agree with you that 881 is already 


off the table because DOL has made their 


decision. 


MS. BOLLER: So can you send us, Brant, can 


you send us that list of 19? I didn’t see the 


article in Saturday’s paper, but do you have a 


one- or two-liner on each of those buildings 


that you could share with this group? 


DR. ULSH: I have 17 of the 19. 


MR. GRIFFON: I was actually going to ask 


the same thing. If you can send that around, 


Brant, to the work group that’d be very useful 


to see what these buildings are. 


DR. ULSH: It’s like a five or six word in 


some cases description of what the building 


was, and I can pass that. 


MS. BOLLER: Great. I appreciate you, Mark, 


setting up this call, and everybody who’s on 


it. I’ve got to run, so thank you very much. 


MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Carolyn. 


MR. KOTSCH: Mark, Mark, this is Jeff 


Kotsch. I’m sorry -- with Labor. I just, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

I’ve been on the call for about ten minutes. 


I got in a little late. 


MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Jeff. 


MR. KOTSCH: So if there’s anything I can 


help you with belatedly, let me know. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I’m glad you’re on the 


call. I think if we, I was actually going to 


recommend sort of the same path that was just 


mentioned, that we do a follow-up sort of 


technical call with Margaret Ruttenber and 


that might be a point where we would want 


NIOSH and DOL on there. And basically to 


understand because these numbers of workers by 


building, you know, that is in the news story, 


my understanding is it did come from the 


Ruttenber data, and I think we need to 


basically understand whether, if there’s any, 


I don’t know if there’s even a disparity here. 


In fact, some of these buildings, some 


of the ones that Brant has mentioned like 


Building 112, they list 19 people. That’s 


over 14 years. Maybe one person might have 


been in there and also working in other areas. 


We don’t know exactly why these buildings 


might have come up for having some people 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

badged for neutrons. 


So I think we want to, but this might 


be better served to do a technical call. 


Because also my understanding is that, from 


talking with Margaret Brucely (ph) was that 


all this data for the radiation side of their 


study anyway, they did have, do, as Larry 


said, some of chemical exposure information. 


But all the radiation data she said came 


directly from DOE. So if that’s the case, we 


should have the same data, and I just want to 


make sure we’re working with the same data and 


interpreting it the same way. 


DR. ULSH: Yeah, the dosimetry data that Dr. 


Ruttenber used came from two different 


sources. One was the RHRS database and the 


other was a database that was maintained by 


Los Alamos. Both of those sources were 


migrated into HIS-20 which as you know we 


have. So we do have the raw data. 


Now the part that we may not have is 


what Dr. Ruttenber did with it after he got it 


in terms of putting it into a format that 


would be useful for an epidemiological study, 


and specifically the job exposure matrix that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

he created dealing with toxics. 


MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, that’s kind of 


what she indicated to me was that the raw data 


you may all have, but assembling it in a 


usable fashion was a little bit of their value 


added. 


MR. ELLIOTT: But there’s a difference here, 


Mark, that we all should recognize. An 


epidemiologic study analysis file is 


completely different in its assemblage than 


what we would look to for dose reconstruction 


purposes. 


MR. GRIFFON: Agreed. Agreed. 


 DR. WADE: This is Lew. We have three paths 


forward, I think. Let me just sort of put 


that forward. Brant is going to share with 


everyone on the call, interested parties, his 


brief description for the buildings in 


question, whatever information that he has. 


Mark, it was suggested by Carolyn that 


you might want to contact the reporter and see 


if there were sources that could be made 


available to you all leading up to a technical 


call that I think, Mark, you would arrange --


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27

 DR. WADE: -- with the parties. And then 


after that call, it would be your choice as to 


whether you wanted to reconvene the work group 


or just how you wanted to proceed. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think that would be, 


you know, a technical call. And I did, like I 


said, briefly talk to Margaret Ruttenber and 


she seemed agreeable to that. So that way we 


can see. I just want to make sure that we can 


look at this and see if we’re looking at the 


data in a similar fashion, and we can, because 


like I said several of these buildings have a 


very limited number of people showing 


monitoring in those time periods. And maybe 


we can sort some of those out. 


 DR. WADE: Your thoroughness is to be 


applauded I think. So I think those are the 


paths forward. 


Brant, you will share the information 


you have on the buildings. 


And, Mark, you’ll decide what outreach 


you want to make to the reporter, and then 


you’ll schedule a technical call. 


MR. GRIFFON: That sounds like a reasonable 


path forward. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

Any of the other work group members 


have any questions or comments? 


MS. MUNN: Yeah, Mark, this is Wanda. It 


puzzles me why this list of supposedly new 


buildings is appearing now. You know, we can 


assume that any building on any site anywhere 


can be pointed to and say there were people 


who worked there. But when we’re looking at 


things like cafeterias and paint shops, 


because that’s what all of these buildings 


are, and we’re discussing specifically neutron 


exposure, then it’s baffling why individuals 


might think that those were sources for 


exposure. 


And unless there is some criterion 


established somewhere that I’m unaware of, I 


can’t imagine, it’s hard to imagine why that 


type of building would be incorporated in a 


potential exposure site. So it’s easy to say 


this is a potential exposure site. Without 


concrete evidence that this is an exposure 


site, then that does not appear to be any 


basis for making that kind, taking that kind 


of position. 


So I guess I’m not sure exactly how 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

you anticipate approaching that specific 


question, but it appears that that’s the crux 


of the matter here. Why would anyone assume 


that these buildings are appropriately 


incorporated in what is considered to be a 


potential source for neutron exposure? Why? 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess that’s the 


question, Wanda. Is, you know, I just have 


building numbers so it’d be very helpful to 


see descriptions. Part of this --


MS. MUNN: Even the descriptions themselves 


are not really the key. The key is why would 


anyone assume that this building is a source? 


MR. GRIFFON: Because people were monitored 


for neutron exposures that were in that 


building apparently. That’s the question. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Or they worked in that 


building, they were assigned to that building 


like the paint shop --


MR. GRIFFON: But they might have went to 


other places --


MR. ELLIOTT: -- they went out on a, they 


were to go over and paint in some other 


building where plutonium was processed, and 


they were badged for that activity. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that seems like a 


logical explanation, Larry, so that’s what we 


have to see. If there’s a logical explanation 


for all these, then we have a response. I 


mean, I think part of -- and we have to just 


make sure that criteria, the three-step 


criteria you mentioned, is going to accomplish 


the goal that we wanted in our original SEC 


class. 


So I think some of these may, you 


know, you look at them and you say that very 


few people in 14 years were monitored in that 


building, it’s likely that the building wasn’t 


a source necessarily. And maybe they can be 


readily explained by the description of the 


buildings, you know, the activities. 


MS. MUNN: Well, it would be helpful to have 


them, and I suppose any judgment prior to that 


is really preliminary. 


MS. ALBERG: Mark, this is Jeanette with 


Senator Allard’s office, and the third 


criteria as I wrote it down was employment in 


a PU building or a building with PU exposures. 


Now any of those 19 buildings, is that the 


argument that these 19 buildings had possible 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

PU exposures? And does then Labor then have 


to basically change that qualification? 


MR. GRIFFON: Well, I guess that’s the 


question is, see, the way these numbers were 


derived my understanding is that it was just 


the people assigned to those buildings were 


monitored for neutron exposures at some point. 


And it’s not clear that they got the neutron 


exposures working in those buildings 


necessarily. 


As Larry just indicated they could 


have been assigned to that building and sent 


out to work in other plutonium areas or 


buildings where neutron exposures could have 


occurred. So that’s what we want to sort of 


run down. Is this really a lot of additional 


buildings or is this really the same set of 


facts just with this question of where people, 


you know, were assigned work versus where they 


were exposed. 


MR. ELLIOTT: That third criterion of 


employment in a building identified as a 


plutonium building, I did not mention that 


there were nine specific buildings identified 


for DOL as being plutonium processing 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

buildings --


MR. GRIFFON: Larry, could you --


MR. ELLIOTT: -- nine are listed in this 


technical bulletin. 


MR. GRIFFON: Could you send that technical 


bulletin to all of us? I’m sure it’s 


available somehow, but I’m not. Could you 


forward --


MR. ELLIOTT: I think I’ve already done 


that, but I will resend it. 


MR. GRIFFON: I’d appreciate it. Yeah, 


that’d be helpful. 


MS. ALBERG: Larry, if you could send it to 


the Congressional delegation that would be 


nice, too. Thank you. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Will do. 


MR. BROEHM: Larry, this is Jason. If you 


would send it to me, I’ll get it to everyone. 


MR. ELLIOTT: Okay. 


MR. GRIFFON: So I think that as Lew stated, 


I think that’s our best path forward for now. 


And I just wanted to do a call today so we 


could at least maybe give an update on the 


full Board meeting tomorrow, the full Board 


meeting phone call as to what we’re doing with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

this. I know it’s certainly a concern to some 


people, and we want to address it as quickly 


as we can. And that’s the purpose of this 


call. 


So Brant’s going to forward the 


building description. Larry’s going to 


forward the criteria that he outlined. I will 


contact Laura Franks and then from there I’ll, 


considering now setting up a technical phone 


call which would be NIOSH with Margaret 


Ruttenber most likely along with DOL. I think 


that was a good suggestion. 


And if everyone’s agreeable, I’ll stay 


on the call just to monitor for the work 


group. But just to have this, I think that’s 


where I want to get into the details of what 


database is everybody looking at, where are 


these numbers coming from, and then reconvene 


the work group if needed after that. 


 DR. WADE: Sounds like a plan, Mark. 


MS. BARRIE: Mark, this is Terrie Barrie 


with ANWAG. And I just want to raise a couple 


of issues. You keep talking about that 


plutonium building, the ones that are the 


source for neutron radiation. Isn’t it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

correct that highly enriched uranium also 


(unintelligible) neutrons? 


And the second item I want to raise to 


you is I checked the 19 buildings that was in 


the, as Laura Franks reported being omitted. 


And I found or I couldn’t find nine of those 


buildings listed on the site profile. And one 


of them is --


MR. GRIFFON: I think, Terrie, I’ll let 


NIOSH respond to this, too, but I think that 


the presence in a plutonium building was one 


of their criteria, not meant to be all 


inclusive. So you are correct. There are 


other sources of, other potential sources of 


neutron exposures, but that was one of their 


criteria. 


Larry or Brant, you can respond to 


that. 


DR. ULSH: I’ll speak to it, Mark. 


Terrie, in terms of the sources of 


significant neutrons at Rocky Flats, primarily 


you’re talking about anywhere where there was 


a significant quantity of plutonium, so the 


700 buildings primarily but not only. Also 


there was a neutron generating source in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

Building 991. And both of those I just 


mentioned are already included in the NDRP and 


included in the class. 


Now in terms of enriched uranium that 


was in Building 881, enriched uranium 


operation. So it’s kind of academic at this 


point because they’ve already added that. 


However, just to answer your question there 


was enriched uranium metal there. Though it 


is certainly true that some chemical forms of 


uranium can generate neutrons, for instance 


uranium hexafluoride, but those are not the 


forms that were present at Rocky Flats. 


Enriched uranium metal doesn’t put out many 


neutrons at all. In fact, you would be very 


concerned if it did from a criticality 


standpoint. So, no, the major sources of 


neutrons at Rocky were the plutonium and that 


neutron generator in Building 991. 


Oh, and then you also asked about the 


site profile. You are correct. I also looked 


at the site profile just this morning again. 


And the purpose of the site profile is 


primarily to list the major buildings and that 


is a somewhat subjective criteria. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

obviously you would want to talk about 


Building 881, Building 771. Some of the 


smaller buildings were not discussed in the 


site profile. You’re correct about that. 


The place that I got my descriptions 


this morning is -- and I’ll also send this out 


to the web address -- the historical American 


engineering record, and that’s got a more 


complete description than the site profile 


does. 


MR. GRIFFON: Actually, and I remember that 


link being discussed during the work group 


meetings. Previously we looked at some of 


those links. You shared those with us for 


some of the other buildings. 


So I think that’s if that’s okay with 


the work group, I think that will be our path 


forward. 


MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Mark, when you 


make your call to the media folks, is it 


possible for me to join you on that call? I’d 


certainly like to hear personally what’s going 


on. Just let me know when you’re going to 


make it. 


MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don’t see a problem 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

with that, Wanda. Yeah, I can do a three-way 


call with you. 


MS. MUNN: I don’t know when or whether I’ll 


be available, but if --


MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I’ll try to get you on 


the call. 


Okay so --


DR. WADE: I think we’re done then. 


MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re done. I 


appreciate everyone’s time and I’ll give a 


brief report tomorrow to the full Board on 


what we’re doing. And I’ll try to make this, 


these two calls, contacting Laura Franks and 


the technical call, and do it quickly in the 


near future so we can answer some of these 


questions. 


MS. MUNN: That’s great. 


Lew and Christine, may I speak with 


you for a few minutes after everybody’s off 


the line? 


 DR. WADE: Surely. 


MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, everyone. 


(Whereupon, the working group meeting 


concluded at 10:40 a.m.) 

______________________________ 

38 

CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of Nov. 26, 


2007; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


20th day of February, 2008. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102